Trump to bring about major technological throwback

>Most of the GOP eyes the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality regulations with almost as much fury as the Affordable Care Act. These regulations ban internet providers from blocking or slowing lawful sites or charging them for faster delivery of their content.

>Big Telecom should also face fewer obstacles in Washington to bulking up through mergers. AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner now looks to be a go; candidate Trump denounced that, but President-elect Trump’s nominees and tech-policy advisors oppose regulation and have backed prior mega-mergers.

>Too many of Trump’s statements over what he referred to as “the cyber” in the second presidential debate can be fairly summarized as “boy, I don’t know.” The president-elect has acted as if successful attacks against Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party by attackers who increasingly seem to have been Russian-sponsored only means that hackers enjoy “pwning” Dems.

>Trump’s law-and-order focus means more unproductive debate over why the tech industry can’t remove terrorist propaganda from the internet and develop “strong” encryption that still somehow allows the government to get back into a smartphone or a tablet.

yahoo.com/news/trump-tech-policy-in-2017-132304016.html

>Politician doesn't understand modern computing
>More at 11
This is literally nothing new, you tinfoil hat autist
Either candidate would have wanted the same retarded shit

>he's not even in yet but we can tell you that he's going to be awful and fucked up

>Yahoo News
Did you also here the six crazy things you can do to lose weight doctors don't want you to know about

Bend over and recieve the net neutrality you're so willing to accept.

it's not a secret that he's going to be disastrous to the encryption and security communities, as well as his cabinet and party destroying years of work in protecting the internet from the jews.

...

>people actually thought trump would be different

>What is Populism?

...

Could you give the original?

Yea, the FCC should be able to regulate the fucking ISP monopoly

>in this moment i am euphoric
>not because of mainstream politics
>but because,
>i am enlightened by my own false equivalence fallacy

Ok, now we know the Sup Forums is new reddit.

it'd be better if they didn't need to regulate ISPs as monopolies because most markets had a half-dozen or more different ISPs to choose from.

Of course a Republican administration won't give us that either. Republicans want corporations to rule your life and take all your money as much as Democrats want government to rule your life and take all your money.

Reminder that both candidates want to do this shit, however Trump will at trigger the shitlibs more and thus make everything more open to reform and recovery.

>both candidates are shit
>I will vote for one of them
>I won't vote third party because the Jewish media told me it would be throwing away my vote
>"Hillary would have been the same!! >:("

>ill vote for a lolbertarian who has 5% of the vote and doesn't even know where Aleppo is

Ah yes, good one

who gives a flying fuck about aleppo?

As long as trump doesn't listen to CIA nigger suggestions to backdoors, I'm good.

We're Making America Great Again, and there's nothing whiny liberal writers can do about it.

Or Bernie or Jill Stein. Remember it was Hillary who said Bennie was unelectable and dumb liberals believed her.

Americans need to think long term, not worry about short term. 5% of national vote for a third party gets them federal funding, 15% gets them into the debates. That's enough for a start, then in 4-8 years third party has a chance. Otherwise you keep perpetuating the two (one) party system.

But that's how your corporate overlords want it. Because whoever wins, dems or repubs, corporations win too.

Trump is not even in yet, and he's saved the country more money with a single tweet than you'll make in your life as a barista.

mfw Sup Forums fell for Trump

back to your containment board samefag

ok

It's been reddit for a while. Enjoy immigrants from Twitter and Facebook and reddit posting here thanks to elections.

Looks shooped.

We knew he was an idiot. We just memed him into office because we thought it would be funny.

and also he is less corrupt than Hillary so thats a plus

>tfw jeb Will never ever make america great again

>Slow and steady little turtle.

>and also he is less corrupt than Hillary so thats a plus
Meanwhile Trump is busy appointing Goldman Sachs memesters and other billionaires into office while still refusing to releasing his tax returns and allowing his kids, who know run every Trump company, meddle into official affairs.

kek

>he fell for the drain the swamp meme

>Meanwhile Trump is busy appointing Goldman Sachs memesters and other billionaires into office while still refusing to releasing his tax returns and allowing his kids, who know run every Trump company, meddle into official affairs.

yet somehow less corrupt than Hillary. kek

>He saved money by weakening US military power

Just like his puppet master wanted, such a great guy.

lock her up, amirite xDDDD

oh wait, fuggg trump doesn't want to do that either

>terrorist propaganda from the internet
what?

This is why we need single transferable vote.

>This is why we need to overthrow the bourgeoisie and instate a one-party system
ftfy

A one-party system is even more corrupt than the corporate oligopoly we have now. Power corrupts, you can't escape it. The only way to check it is by competition. It's as true in politics as it is in business.

Why not get rid of parties all together?

Because that's impossible to do?

A party is just a group of politicians with similar agendas that get together and form an organization to advocate for and advance those agendas. Banning political parties is essentially saying you want to ban people from associating with each other.

That's why the withering of the state is inevitable, but before that we must support the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to facilitate the transition from the corrupt capitalistic system we have now.

So, what, we shouldn't anticipate peoples' future actions based on their past and the things they have said?
OK, we'll wait a few months to get fucked before worrying we might get fucked.

>obama tries to make the Internet a utility and fought for net neutrality
>trump comes and fucks that up
guess we are going to stay with expensive dsl forever while every other country gets cheap fiber Internet

net neutrality is basically obamacare for the internet, user. It's bad, anti-competitive and favours the big guys over the little guys.

Explain how not favoring certain websites or IPs over others is anti-competitive.

lmao, you watch Glenn Beck too?

>I don't know what I'm talking about but some guy on the radio said it so it must be right

Once you have a dictatorship of the proletariat, some members thereof will make themselves more equal than others, and will turn themselves into the same self-interested autocrats that every other state in history has featured. Members of the proletariat are not endowed with some special virtue that makes them immune to the temptations of power, any more than anyone else is. Someone who has power will turn into one of the same amoral elites that we have now, regardless of where they came from.

Oh yeah, because the ISPs are totally our enemies in the cause of a private and censure-free internet.

>BUT THE GUBMINT PROMISED ME I COULD DOWNLOAD HENTAI CHEAPER IF ONLY I COMPLETELY GIVE UP ALL PRIVACY!
>FUCKING CORPORATIONS!

There is no ISP monopoly. Any example you can point to is either the result of living in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, or local infrastructure regulations. So I'll pre-empt you by reminding everyone that localized lack of choice does not a monopoly make.

Sure

1
2
34

>le george orwell meme

>Explain how not favoring certain websites or IPs over others is anti-competitive.
That's not the entire discussion of net neutrality. Net neutrality in a nutshell means that all traffic must be treated equal. This means that large companies such as Google that owns servers and infrastructure all over the fucking globe MUST be treated equal to, say, George's webshop for self-knitted sweaters.

I'm not smelling what you're stepping in

calling it a meme doesn't make it false.

Saying that it will happen because "hurr durr nobody can resists the temptations of power" doesn't make it true, and is also a circular argument ("no one can resist temptation of power because no one can resist temptation of power").

>we just memed him into office
>he believes repeating digits at the end of a post number on a chinese hentai website elected the POTUS

Didnt Sup Forums oppose net neutrality when it first became a thing? What changed everybodies mind now?

Actually, I wrote an essay about this some time ago (the date is today because I anonymised it)

www file[remove this]dropper com[slash]essay_4

Here I try to discuss why the discussion about net neutrality isn't black and white at all.

The "obamacare of the internet" btw, was a poke at Ted Cruz, but I guess none of you got that reference.

>"hurr durr nobody can resists the temptations of power"
Said by literally nobody in this thread, or Orwell himself.

There has never been a point in all of recorded human history where a society has failed to produce individuals intent on leading for their own benefit. Never.

The sooner you understand this, the better.

democrats are blue and republicans are red.

Reminder: the election is over. One of them is actually going to be president now and has stated that he plans to actually do this.

Anyway Hillary hadn't even stated whether she supported killing net neutrality and there's no reason for her to bother with it since it wouldn't be on her anyway.

HOLY SHIT I'm not going to read that 9 page rant about net neutrality and why you think it is bad you fucking autistic piece of shit, you probably don't even know what it is you fucking sperg.

What exactly is so bad about killing net neutrality? Doesnt this stop privately owned companies from operating how they want to? I mean, if you dont like how they operate, just dont use it, its really that simple.

No. You might have read some stupid bullshit from Sup Forums and decided the entire site believed the same thing but Sup Forums has always been predominantly in favor of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the status quo. Removing net neutrality changes stuff and it's not a favorable change for anyone except the incumbent media companies.

Considering cable Internet providers are a monopoly and most of the country's geography can only get cable broadband or no broadband at all, this is a really disingenuous answer. The market being "free" doesn't mean much when there is no real competition.

>www file[remove this]dropper com[slash]essay_4
Interdasting, but I don't have the attentionspan to read this and then shitpost on Sup Forums though.

But if its that much of a problem for somebody, they do have the option to not have internet. If you keep paying for services which you do not like you are just supporting the companies and all of their policies.

Some people can resist the temptations of power. But not everybody can. And sooner or later, a malicious individual will, by chance or design, end up with that power. It's the law of large numbers, because corrupt and corruptible people exist, sooner or later you'll run into them. The problem with totalitarian states is that their concentration of power isn't resilient to such individuals. Your organizing principle of society has to be able to withstand sociopaths worming their way into any position.

It allows anticompetitive behavior. Example: Suppose Comcast, who is both an ISP and a cable TV company, decides, in the absence of net-neutrality provisions, that they're going to slow all traffic to and from Netflix servers down to 56k speeds, so as to make watching Netflix difficult to impossible, and push people onto their own services.

You're right that this would not be a problem if there was sufficient competition that consumers who were displeased could just switch ISPs, but in many areas of the US one ISP has a monopoly, or is one half of a duopoly.

Ironically enough a lot of those monopolies came about because Comcast lobbied local governments to give them exclusive franchises, or to pass restrictive regulations for running cables. Corruptible people in government got bought off, which the commie I replied to above might want to think about.

It's essentially impossible to function in modern society without an Internet connection so, frankly, just spare me.

>It's essentially impossible to function in modern society without an Internet connection so, frankly, just spare me.
30-33% of American households do not have an Internet connection. Please tell me more about how it is impossible to live without Internet.

Enter the real world you fucking tool. Alternatively, you can go back to Sup Forums where people will legitimately argue that net neutrality is bad that the government shouldn't be stepping in and forcing common sense pro-consumer measures.

Fuck off you retarded lefty faggot, you lost, we won.

>Ironically enough a lot of those monopolies came about because Comcast lobbied local governments to give them exclusive franchises, or to pass restrictive regulations for running cables. Corruptible people in government got bought off, which the commie I replied to above might want to think about.

B-b-but muh free market! If a customer doesn't want the service they shouldn't buy it! Free market doesn't obligate the government to allow the market to actually be free. :^)

>we should make policy around the spending habits of poors, niggers, and boomers

America is a third world country/not a modern society.

Your example with Comcast is the problem of allowing companies such as Comcast, it should be split up.

This has less to do with net neutrality and more to do with powerful megaconglomerates that influences politicians.

>uppose Comcast, who is both an ISP and a cable TV company, decides, in the absence of net-neutrality provisions, that they're going to slow all traffic to and from Netflix servers down to 56k speeds, so as to make watching Netflix difficult to impossible


What exactly is wrong with this though? You are paying to use THEIR service, of which they should be able to run however they please. If you dont like how they run it, you can just stop paying them.

If they want to operate in a way that is against our laws they can go somewhere else. We own the lines that connect to their business. Net neutrality is not a hindrance to their business it simply states that everyone gets access to the same accommodations. Even potential competitors. If they have a reason to hinder a competing service they really should be broken up anyway but at least net neutrality keeps things fair in the meantime.

all frogposters must die from asscancer

Fucking millennials will accept random figures posted ON FUCKING FOUR CHINS as fact without even bothering to look it up. No wonder why you guys elected Trump in the wake of all the blatantly fake """news""" that was posted all over your precious Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Snapchat.

>we should not make policies for poor people
.... and this is why the top 1% makes more money than the bottom 70% in the US.

>Republicans want corporations to rule your life and take all your money
There are idiots who actually believe this

(You)

I wouldn't object to a mandate saying that the ISP bits had to be essentially a utility, that was barred from doing content production or distribution, or advertising, and the pay-TV part had to be a separate company that transmitted its product over the ISP's lines.

you can go too far in either direction. Too far in the favor of the rich and you get monopolies. Too far in the direction of the poor and you get endless welfare money-pits.

the astonishing achievement of America has been to accomplish both of these at the same time

>There are idiots

Ah, so you are one of the tl;dr types. Nice millennial meme you got there. Or, as us educated type would say, what a predictably small attention span for a typical young american.

Have fun being a mindless tool for the system to use.

>the astonishing achievement of America has been to accomplish both of these at the same time

Don't tell me you're actually deluded enough to think this?

>Too far in the direction of the poor and you get endless welfare money-pits.
Lol, okay, then explain why the Nordic model is so successful then? And please refrain from the standard Sup Forums reply which is to blame it on niggers or jews.

>implying you actually read it
>implying this isn't a image board where taiwanese tapestry fans can post inane comments and funny reaction pictures

t. also an idiot

>Lol, okay, then explain why the Nordic model is so successful then? And please refrain from the standard Sup Forums reply which is to blame it on niggers or jews.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but non-whites are to blame. You'll notice that Sweden before and after "refugees" is very different. Just... saying.

>le swedish immigrant problem
Is highly exaggerated by far-right media in the US and also not directly related to welfare politics, because refugees not all become citizens, and there have been some changes to law recently that makes exceptions because of the high number of refugees the recent years.

>poor people deserve to remain poor because US-style FREEDOM
>blame niggers, not the wealthy or the politicians making laws that unfairly favors the already wealthy

>far-right media in the US

Here's your queue to say that you have seventeen intelligence agencies who have confirmed that Russians hacked the Swedish immigration system, and are the real culprits of their issues.

>stormfront and breitbart
>not far right

Why are you so fucking easily triggered? Do you mind replying to the actual content of my post instead of complaining about me using the wrong words like you're some kind of pronoun-obsessed tranny?

>He doesn't realize the current GOP and Trump included want exactly this

Reminser that if you're leftist you're literally everything wrong with modern society

Trump wants to split up Comcast and make the TimeWarner merger, for example, illegal.

I'll give you credit for one thing: you didn't give me shit for conflating "queue" with "cue."

But anyway, I never cited any sources so you don't even know where I got this impression from.

The Islamification of Europe is not just some stupid meme. It's not as though the governments in these nations don't suppress anti-Islam speech, which lends a LOT of credibility to the rapefugee memes, since the people presenting them win the debate by default when they are actively precluded from even having one.

>meanwhile reality

I read it user, thanks for sharing. I like what I read, but too bad I'm too much of a retard to fully understand it, but I did learn some stuff from it.

Corporations run the world user. Both parties want what's best for corporations.

His recent advisor picks, Eisenach, don't inspire hope on that front. I think he was full of hot air and is going to roll over on this, just like the rest of his bombastic campaign claims.

And I was mostly speaking about the "corporations take over our lives" bit, not tech topics specifically.